The Norwich Bulletin has Julie Amero as the focus of its main Sunday editorial today. Clearly the paper has been on the receiving end of a lot of negative comments, including mine from a previous blog entry here.
That’s because it is the only institution, aside from the Norwich police and prosecutor’s office, to come out against Amero. Not that there’s anything wrong with that — everyone’s entitled to an opinion. But what’s disturbing is that the Bulletin seems to be playing fast and loose with the facts in the case, as well as with its own history of it.
It wrote on Sunday
Whether Amero was purposefully exploring pornographic Web sites, or was the victim of a technological assault, is irrelevant.
Oddly, though, that wasn’t irrelevant when the Bulletin expressed its opinion in its editorial of January 11, when it wrote
Norwich substitute teacher Julie Amero clearly was wrong to access several pornographic Web sites on her computer at Kelly Middle School
and
Still, she was accused and convicted of intentionally accessing several pornographic sites — not pop-up ads or windows, as she suggested.
Almost as an afterthought the paper added then, “And she did not turn off the computer when the students saw the images.”
Now, suddenly, the case is not about whether she deliberately accessed the porn, but about whether she did enough to “protect” the kids who were trying to see the images. Way to ignore your own history, Bulletin.
In fact, the Bulletin went so far as to reverse course from its earlier editorial, writing Sunday that whether Amero deliberately access the porn is now “moot.”
It wasn’t moot in January, though.
Then we get into the spin. For example, the Bulletin wrote this gem:
It’s an unlikely sentence, even though children were exposed to six hours of Internet pornography under Amero’s watch.
Notice the spin? It sounds like a group of kids were sitting in a classroom while porn flicks showed continuously on a screen. In reality, there were different groups of kids in the classroom and only a handful said they saw anything, and those kids deliberately sought it out.
In fact, according to the trial transcript, the children testified quite specifically that they could not see the computer from their seats.
Q: And you were sitting at your desk, and you could see the screen on the computer while you were sitting there?
A: No.
(Transcript p. 157)
In fact, according to the transcript, the children testified that the only time they saw anything inappropriate was when they went to the teacher’s desk. One went to ask her a question. One went to throw away a piece of paper. And so on.
So much for being “exposed to six hours of Internet pornography.”
And in fact, contrary to the Bulletin’s editorial, Amero did try to stop the kids from seeing what was on the computer, as one of those kids testified:
Q: And what happened as the picture, as the web page loaded up?
A: She turned the screen so no one could see it.
(Transcript p. 178)
The Bulletin, it seems, doesn’t want to admit its mistakes, and it is now spinning the facts to support an irrational conclusion.
Want another example of spin? Here’s a subtle one:
Yes, there were victims: the children in the classroom who saw the graphic images. Six of them testified to the events of Oct. 19, 2004.
What the paper doesn’t say is that the six of them testified that
- they couldn’t see the computer from their seats;
- they only saw the porn when the went up to the teacher’s desk;
- Amero pushed them away from the computer; and
- they only saw things for a fraction of a second
All this is in the trial transcript, which the Bulletin suggests we read. Perhaps its own staff needs to read it as well.
Finally, the Bulletin does something the lawyers in the case did as well. The phrase is “assume facts in evidence.” In this case, the paper is taking as a given that seeing a few seconds of porn is harmful to the kids.
I, for one, would like to see proof of that. I’d like to see proof that teenagers seeing naked people is bad for them.
You can argue that continuous, long-term exposure isn’t good, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a few seconds at most. Is it embarrassing for parents? Possibly. Is it giggle inducing? Certainly. Is it harmful?
If you’re going to say yes, as the Norwich Bulletin is, you’d better prove it. Because, let’s be honest, if seeing naked people was really bad for teenagers, you’d have a lot more of them in therapy.
A paper’s editorial board has a lot more freedom than reporters — most notably, it can (and is supposed to) express opinions. But those opinions still need to be based on facts and evidence.
In this case, once again, the Bulletin has chosen to ignore or spin the facts to support an erroneous conclusion.
It’s embarrassing.
[Note: I made a few minor typo corrections to this post after publishing.]
The Fray
jo says:
I have read all the articles about Julie Amero (Including now the Bulletin’s Sunday editorial. Shameless and absolutely beyond belief!) I have read all of the expert analyses. I have read the hundreds of comments from America and from around the world. I have read the entire transcript of Julie’s “trial”. I have read the vague and inartfully drawn statute under which Julie was convicted as well as its legislative history and some of the decisions construing it. (The appellate courts of Connecticut have had trouble with the vagueness of this statute – a statute certainly not written for a case like this one – finding the statute to be constitutional only with proper, clear, curative instructions to the jury from the Court, something that, in my view, was lacking here.) There is no need for me to here “preach to the choir” of my belief in Julie’s innocence or of the confluence of ignorance, incompetence and apparent malice and/or hysteria that convicted her. Like many of you, I have made my contribution to Julie’s defense fund and have emailed or written to the news outlets, my friends and colleagues, government officials and others. More must be done. It’s been over 40 years since I marched down Massachusetts Avenue and assembled in peaceful protest with hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of others in Cambridge Commons in opposition to misguided conduct by the government of that era. Then, we protested, among other things, the sacrifice of thousands of innocent young people – my then contemporaries – to a different kind of ignorance. Eventually, mainstream America took notice of our protests. Now, we must protest the sacrifice of one innocent to a different ignorance remembering that “[a]n injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.” (Martin Luther King). While some of us, young and old[er], with enough computer savvy to access a blog, are painfully aware of this current injustice to Julie Amero, mainstream America and mainstream Connecticut are not aware of it or of its threat to their liberty. Most of mainstream America gets its information from television and the print media. And that media publicizes the news that sells commercial airtime or print advertisements. Let’s provide them with something to publicize. At least, let’s let Norwich know that we are watching. (I think that peaceful protest and freedom of assembly and association are still permitted there.) Let’s let Julie know that we support her. I do not live in Connecticut. It will take me at least three hours to get there, but I will be in Norwich on Julie’s sentencing date, now scheduled for March 29, 2007. Please get up from your computer and join me. You computer geeks (a term I use with respect) who are far more blog-savvy than I, please get the word out. While I would like to be in the courtroom to observe the proceedings on March 29th, nothing would please me more than to find that the place is so crowded with Julie’s supporters that I can’t get in. By the way, I am not some left-wing radical. I am now a moderate, middle-aged part of mainstream America. I am outraged. I am also an attorney. I am angry. And ashamed.
Corrine says:
@Jo, you are not alone. People with common sense from around the world are disgusted and outraged.
(Via SunbeltBLOG)
Pingback: http://securitygarden.blogspot.com/2007/03/norwich-bulletin-porn-was-ameros-burden.html
pwils says:
I am from just north of norwich. I plan on being there, I agree…….there needs to be a ton of people there for this sentencing, the more there, the more of a message it will send. And I am part of that mainstream america too with 4 children and 3 grandchildren.
Rob says:
Thank you all for keeping on top of the rebuttals. It’s hard work to painstakingly counter each piece of misinformation spewed forth by sources such as the Norwich Bulletin. And for those of us that live too far away, it helps to know that folks that can will be there for the sentencing.
Scott Aaron says:
I have to ask, what did the defense team do during the trial? Did they bring up all the points you’ve brought up? It seems like it should have been so easy to shoot the case down. Did they bring in a PC decked out like the one in the classroom and visit the hairstyle site that caused the problem to begin with, and show what happens? (For dramatic effect, have the mainframe expert, fresh off his testimony of how internet explorer works, be the one to visit the site and then explain what’s happening.)
Eric Berlin » Blog Archive » The Case of the Pop-Up Porn says:
[...] few media outlets claiming that she is getting exactly what she deserves. Andrew takes them apart, here and [...]
Fred says:
Julie Amero would have zero problems today if that was an Apple Mac running Safari in that classroom instead of a Windows PC.
That is a fact. Ignore it if you wish, but the fact remains.
Anonymous says:
Fred – though factual, it is entirely irrelevant. It WAS not an Apple Mac running Safari and it will not BE an Apple Mac running Safari as long as Microsoft is in the marketing position it is in.
Clearly you don’t give a crap about the future of a woman who may go to PRISON, convicted as a sex offender; a label that will undoubtedly stick with her a very long time (believe me, neighborhoods make this label stick!)
Stick to the subject, fanboy!
lionemom says:
Whoops, that was me replying to Fred.
One other thing, actually. Whether or not it was an Apple Mac running Safari is entirely NOT up to the person who is being charged with the crime. Your local school board decides what computers get purchased, not the teachers themselves.
Which is what makes this whole thing even more of a crime.
jo says:
Easy, lionemom! We’re all angry and Fred HAS missed the point, but he is not the enemy here. Maybe,he is just not up to speed and hasn’t read enough about the case yet to grasp the horror of this disgraceful saga. Lionemom, are you close enough to Norwich to be there on the 29th? I hope so. And Fred, look into this a little more. When you do and you realize what the real issues are and what was done to this poor woman, you too will feel like you’ve been punched in the gut and will want to lash out at anyone who can’t understand her plight.
Norwich Bulletin Oozes Intellectual Dishonesty in Amero Case - odd time signatures - Blogging life, business, and the internet in 19/7 time says:
[...] Kantor has some more enlightenment for them on his blog, [...]
lionemom says:
Jo – while it’s true that he is not the enemy, Andrew’s site has a history of attracting Apple fans who post just to slam PC’s. Hence my response.
Although I do live fairly close to Norwich, I don’t have time off from work to go to the courthouse that day. If I could, I would definitely be there!
jo says:
In another blog mentioned here under entry titled “Norwich Bulletin Oozes Intellectual Dishonesty in Amero Case”, karoli suggested with respect to the Sunday, March 18, 2007 Norwich Bulletin editorial that it “viewed this [the editorial] as a way to bump traffic and revenue again”. This is precisely what I concluded when I read this most recent editorial and it is why I will not post there. The editorial board simply can’t be that stupid. By now, it surely knows the facts. Rather than carry out its obligation to express a responsible opinion based on facts, it chooses to profit on the back of Julie Amero by following the Ann Coulter formula for financial gain. (Outrageous = $$$$$) The Norwich Bulletin should not be sold on newsstands; it should be sold in the same aisle as Charmin and Scott toilet tissue. At least in that location it would serve some useful purpose. (My apologies to Charmin and Scott for this suggestion). Elsewhere in another entry on that blog it is stated that the law required the jury to find criminal or unlawful intent. This is not quite accurate. The actual language of the statute is important because the way it is worded eliminates the need to find “intent” AT ALL in order to find guilt. The statute only required the jury to find criminal intent OR that the conduct of the accused was “unlawful”. Nowhere in the statute is “unlawful” defined. The jury was left to speculate as to as to the meaning of that term. By drafting this element of the offense in the disjunctive, the requirement of CRIMINAL INTENT (what the law calls mens rea)in order to find guilt has been removed. “Unlawful” conduct (as defined only by the jury in the unguided speculations to which it was left)sufficed. While criminal intent is not required for a conviction for a minor or quasi-criminal offense (eg., speeding; blowing a stop sign)for which relatively minimal penalties are imposed, it IS reqired for a felony conviction. The Court’s instructions to the jury did not cure this defect. (Yes, I read the instructions.) I would expect that the unconstitutionality of this statute, uncured by the instructions to the jury from the Court, will be part of the appeal in this case.
pwils says:
Very interesting podcast to listen to, I suggested that the Norwich Bulletin Editors listen to it, doubt if they will:
http://www.eset.com/podcasts/esetp1e9.mp3
Nick4nCt says:
The Bulletin in the last 3 days has brought up the Amero case both times in a negative manner and both times hiding behind “editorial opinion” refusing to attach thier name to thier attacks.
This paper even goes so far to complain that:
“Amero has many supporters, which should not sway the court, as most of them have formed opinions based on limited knowledge of the facts of the case, or simple hearsay.”
Now as of 9:00AM 3/22/07 if you try to get information from the “Julie Amero Porn Trial” Special section you get a blank page (except for an advertisement)
http://tinyurl.com/27rbhy
This is nothing short of “JOURNALISTIC TERRORISM”.
How can the community which this paper is supposed to serve accept this type of behavior any longer?
How can the community accept it’s local paper to hold someones life up to public ridicule while hiding their own identity and while removing what they have published from public scutiny?
As another poster suggested…
“Toyota? Chelsea Groton? Savings Institute Bank & Trust? Patriot Home Improvement? Why would you wish to have your valued branding associated with such shoddy work?…..as well as Gannett’s corporate office ought to be very interested in the standards of journalism being displayed by your newspaper, editorial staff and by your reporters.”
The time for this is now.
The saying ” All that is needed for evil to thrive is for good men to remain silent” is more than ever the case with the Bulletin.
Leland says:
Three days in a row…
Andrew, isn’t there a legal problem when if a news outlet repeatedly pounds on someone in the editorial pages once the point has been made? It’s been a very long time, but I think there is actually a legal term for it.
pwils says:
They have now taken the articles out of the pay per view archives. They are back available through the special section link. The are either playing games or just outright idiots.
Andrew says:
I dunno — it’s possible they heard the hue and cry over their removing stories and decided a special section was in order. I know here in Roanoke, things are archived automatically; someone has to deliberately stop that from happening. If the same is true there, they might have had to take some time and effort to create a section and put the stuff back up.
[scratches chin] As much as I’d like to think they were malicious or dumb, that might not be the case.
Leland says:
“As much as I’d like to think they were malicious or dumb, that might not be the case.”
Now that is balance. Right on Andrew!
jo says:
The Amero case and, from what I read online and elsewhere, all the government systems in Norwich, including the school system, cry out for some good investigative reporting. Down here on Long Island, great investigative reporting by “Newsday” has led to the exposure, indictment, conviction and imprisonment of numerous public officials. In one school district, the superintendent, treasurer and others were convicted of stealing millions from the taxpayers. Just yesterday, five fire district commissioners, a fire district treasurer and two others were arrested after being indicted for theft. They are alleged to have stolen well over a million dollars from the taxpayers. It is alleged that the treasurer alone stole about $500,000.00. There is a long list of others who have been brought to justice by Newsday’s investigations. I’d like to see some of that type of investigative reporting done in Norwich. We know that the Norwich Bulletin won’t do it, but what about the Hartford Courant or others? They should recognize that in addition to performing a public service, it does sell newspapers. They might start with Robert Hartz, the Norwich school’s IT “specialist”. Based upon his testimony and his omissions in protecting the school’s computer network, he appears to have been entirely unqualified for his job. How did he get it? Who did he know when he was hired? Did he enhance his job application and/or resume? Did he have a familial, social or other relationship with any of those who hired him or with anyone who had influence over those responsible for hiring him? On the other hand, if he was somewhat qualified and DID know that pop-ups can produce pornography images or that one can be trapped in an endless pornography loop (as any real IT expert knows), did he perjure himself at Julie Amero’s trial? Would he have had a motive to do so? Well, let’s think about it. First, he had his own job to protect and probably a substantial salary to go with it. Second, he was certainly beholdin’ to those who hired him and while protecting himself, he protected them. Third, if the school district was receiving federal funds to be spent on the maintenance of the computer network, did he and the district violate the law and any regulations promulgated pursuant to it by failing to keep the system up to snuff? If so, might that have been a criminal violation? A civil fraud? A basis for the federal government to seek return of the funds and deny future funds? If those funds were received and were not spent on the computer network, where are they? Start digging Hartford Courant. Start digging Tribune. You know how to ask questions and use the Freedom of Information laws. You’ll perform a public service and at the same time sell newspapers. It sounds like Norwich might be ripe for harvest.
pwils says:
Well, initially, when they put the transcripts up they put the links to all the articles in the special section on the web. Then they were taken off just prior to the first editorial this week. Then they were back in the special section and then they were back out again this morning only to reappear later this morning.
There has been a special section on the web for some time now, which also included other stories going on in the area. In fact they advertise this in the regular paper copy of the newspaper. There also have been other stories and areas of interest under this special section and they never disappeared on an off like this so…………. that’s what I based my opinion on…………….
Rob says:
Having read the trial transcripts in their entirety, I can’t help but conjure up an image of the defence lawyer that looks startlingly like that Rooster lawyer from Futurama. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Look it up on Wikipedia . Oh my.
Leland says:
Rob said, I can’t help but conjure up an image of the defence lawyer that looks startlingly like that Rooster lawyer from Futurama.
ROFL!!!
Anonymous says:
Absolutely! Maybe the powers that be in Norwich are feeling some of the heat from the fire that should have been lit under them two years ago.
Fuck the Norwich Bulletin at The Mad Finn says:
[...] Why Norwich Bulletin’s Sunday editorial is so wrong Articles about Julie Amero on Norwich Bulletin keep dissappearing [...]
Eric says:
“Andrew, isn’t there a legal problem when if a news outlet repeatedly pounds on someone in the editorial pages once the point has been made? It’s been a very long time, but I think there is actually a legal term for it.”
Libel suffices as far as I’m concerned, if they’re not even representing corroborated court testimony correctly. The more I read about this, the more upset I get that a bunch of computer illiterates, a local newspaper, and a computer department not up to federally-regulated standards are responsible for ruining an innocent woman’s life, subjecting her to 3+ solid years of abuse, and quite possibly indirectly causing her miscarriage. It’s sick. Sick sick sick.
Andrew says:
Hey, “the Mad Finn” hails from my hometown of Flushing. Welcome!
pwils says:
According to recent reports on the websites of the Hartford Courant and the NB, the sentencing of Julie Amero has been postponed to April 26th. According to the Hartford Courant State Attorney Regan is now handling the case. No other information was available.
Leland says:
Check out the subtle differences between the stories posted in The Hartford Courant and The Norwich Bulletin.
From the Bulletin:
In the wake of her conviction, Amero’s case has generated countless Internet discussions, commentary and cries for mercy.
Amero has been portrayed by her growing number of fervent supporters as the helpless victim of pop-up pornography ads.
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/NEWS01/703280344
From the Courant
The conviction has drawn international attention and ridicule from computer security experts who say Amero was a victim of “malicious” software that took over her computer and set off a stream of pornographic “pop-up” messages. During the trial, Assistant State’s Attorney David Smith argued that Amero was guilty because she did not do enough to prevent some seventh-graders from glimpsing pornography.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctamero0328.artmar28,0,4402526.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
It is also interesting to note that David Smith went on record with an entirely different story then he had when this mess began.
gnomic says:
Note that computer forensics guidance says that you should leave a computer on so that the security person can identify the cause and possibly track it back to the source.
http://www.cert.org/forensics/
At one time, computer forensics dealt exclusively with persistent data—data that is stored on
a local hard drive or other medium and is preserved when the computer is powered off—and
was the sole domain of law enforcement. In this age of interconnected networks, however,
the examination and collection of volatile data is becoming more important. Volatile data is
any data that is stored in memory, or in transit, that will be lost when the computer loses
power or is powered off. Volatile data resides in registries, cache, and random access memory
(RAM). Since the nature of volatile data is effervescent, collection of this information will
likely need to occur in real or near-real time.
gnomic says:
Who the hell is Alex?
“Alex Kantor has some more enlightenment for them on his blog, too.”
from the “Norwich Bulletin Oozes Intellectual Dishonesty in Amero Case – odd time signatures – Blogging life, business, and the internet in 19/7 time” post above.
gnomic says:
“In the State of Connecticut, the Governor does not have the authority to grant a pardon as this authority is given to the Board of Pardon and Paroles, if you have any questions regarding the pardon process in the State of Connecticut, I would suggest you contact this agency directly at (203) 805-6605.”
Connecticut Board of Pardon and Parole
(203) 805-6605
Chairman Gregory Everett
Rowland Government Center
55 West Main Street, Suite 520
Waterbury, Connecticut 06702
You can email Chairman Gregory Everett at greg.everett@po.state.ct.us
Leland says:
Are you sure you want her pardoned? That could take away some of her legal remedies in this fiasco.
pwils says:
Her case needs to be vacated either before or after appeal. I think right now what they are doing is trying to find out how they can do this expediently and without getting too much egg on their face.
gnomic says:
I would prefer if the case was overturned for incompetent council and factual errors, then the charges dismissed outright and the prosecutor censured by the bar. However, I’d prefer more that an innocent person not go to jail.
pwils says:
I agree with your version gnomic.
And then she should sue for everything that it has cost her and then some………
(Another) Rob says:
Eric wrote: “…and quite possibly indirectly causing her miscarriage.” I couldn’t get any information on what happened with the pregnancy until last week.
I think it’s definitly worth looking into if the over-eager and/or criminally negligent prosecutor can be charged with the murder of an innocent baby (possibly for the sole purpose of his own political career). “Protecting the mental health of children”, while killing an unborn. No, I’m not an activist, either way, but they’ll probably never have the chance of getting a kid again.
Leland says:
The Prosecutor will never see any criminal charges from this complete debacle. The law is designed to give prosecutors a fairly free hand to enforce the laws without fear of criminal prosecution as long as they play by the rules. Only the most extreme cases of malfeasance in office can bring the wrath of criminal law enforcement down on the prosecutor.
The prosecutor did not cross the magic lines of fraud, falsifying evidence, promoting perjury, with holding exculpatory evidence, taking or making bribes, etc. Some of his witnesses may be in deep stuff over a couple of those things, but the prosecutor took what he had and ran with it.
As tragic as this case is, the prosecutor was just plain ignorant and stubborn. Neither of those is a crime.
If it makes you feel any better, there is an excellent chance he’ll be fired. a prosecutor cannot be effective while acting as the center piece of a monumental civil suit. His career as a prosecutor is over.
Who knows, if Connecticut laws are favorable and Julie Amero is represented by by a really mean little ass-kicker of a legal pit bull, perhaps the idiot prosecutor may even take a personal roll in the lawsuit as well. It all depends on how well Connecticut shields government employees while acting in their official capacity.
pwils says:
The Norwich Bulletin has been very quiet for a few days. I’m hoping that this means they are finally getting the picture. Of course, they could be triying to figure out how to CYA when this whole thing gets blown apart. A guess at this point time will tell…..
pwils says:
Oh you have to read this………….of course the NB won’t publish anything on this I am sure. It would definitely make them look like fools.
http://www.wfsb.com/news/11512962/detail.html?rss=hart&psp=news
Steve Brass says:
WOW, This is a conspiracy at the highest level. They, the MIB, got everyone onboard: The courts, the cops, the teachers, the children, the network administrators, the newspapers, EVERYONE. This Amero lady must have evidence to prove something BIG: Area 51, the Kennedy assassination, human cloning???? WOW.
pwils says:
The Amero sentencing has been postponed again until May 18th. According to the NB it was requested by the original prosecutor in the case and signed by strackbein. Think they are trying to figure out how to practice eating crow?
Bob Rynd says:
RE: Removing content.
On April 24 NB/Greg Smtih wrote of the delay in sentencing to May 18. (See pwils comment). I cannot find this article today 5/2/07. I left a V/M for Greg Smith 860.425.4219. By the way, I called Greg Smith in mid-April and asked him what the local attitudes were in this case considering the “new” evidence that has been offered by IT experts. He did’t annswer my question, but was suprised to hear it still garnered the world attention that it has. I assured him that yes, The world is watching(I’m in California)! He went on to do a bit of tap dancing to defend is reporting of the case – only the facts! Whereas Hartford paper was expressing opinion. Oh, Reeeally. He was curious why he and NB was getting all the feedback and yet Julie herself hasn’t called. I suggested to him that if the roles were reversed would he interview with the paper(N/B) that virtually condemned her to 40 years in prison?
jo says:
He was curious as to why Julie hadn’t called? He wasn’t bright enough to figure out for himself that she has highly competent and qualified counsel who surely has advised her to say nothing to the press? Is he really THAT dumb?
Bob Rynd says:
Hi jo,
Maybe not dumb but naive. It was an interesting phone call. I caught him off-guard but hey, if smeone leaves a phone number and I’ve got questions, I’ll call.
Hank Carr says:
Did anyone notice this recent story from the rag in Norwich?
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/NEWS01/704250301
It sounds like they’ve finally pulled their heads out of their behinds and, like the state, are preparing for the mother of all retreats.
Hank.
pwils says:
Yes, Hank, that is how I feel too. I also think that the reason it has become so quiet and delayed many times over is so that the media will die down. I keep trying to keep it alive in their forums……….keep trying to keep it to the front. I would say that Greg Smith doesn’t read the forums, except for the fact that they in one article, posted comments from their own forums. Unfortunately, the comments they posted were ones picked that were in tune with their own opinion. Amazing how they could say that they were reporting the facts……….. I couldn’t find much for facts in any of their articles but the most recent………..
They also in one of their articles talked about how it was receiving worldwide attention……..
Greg Smith is loaded with crap………….and that is a fact…………..
Hank Carr says:
I am convinced that the state will eventually decide that Ms. Amero is completely innocent and will ask the court to vacate her conviction. I also get a great deal of satisfaction from the knowledge that a great many people are going to pay a great deal of money to atone for the injustices they have visited upon Ms. Amero.
I’m not sure why so many people are so astounded by what the Norwich Bulletin has done. The Truth is long since dead in the United States. The puritanical fundamentalist ultra-right wing political/media/propaganda machine (they are virtually inseparable) killed it. You need look no further than this case but Pat Tillman, Jessica Linch, and the Duke rape case are other recent good examples. It is really sad to see a local newspaper throw out its impartiality and journalistic integrity to join the ultra-conservative right wing dung flinging mob…not surprising…just sad.
John Ashcroft started the ball rolling when he had the Spirit of Justice draped with a curtain back in 2002 indicating that it was the position of the Administration that justice was only universal as long as there were no boobs involved.
Hank.
P.S. John Ashcroft is a boob. H.
gnomic says:
Hank,
John Ashcroft is anything but a boob. I worked for him when he was governor of Missouri. He is extreamly smart and effective. Its just that if are not a white, middle-aged southern baptist, you are not a true American. He believes that the bible (specifically his view of it) trumps the US Constituion. Unlike Gonzo and Dubya, he has a brain and knows how to use it, so don’t underestimated the amount of damage he can do, even out of office.
Hank Carr says:
gnomic wrote:
“He believes that the bible (specifically his view of it) trumps the US Constitution.”
Thanks for the clarification. A very good but very sad point.
Hank.
Leland says:
Well I’ll be dipped in organic waste material. The Norwich Bulletin finally got a clue.
I’ll bet anything it was corporate legal that gave it to them. How much do you suppose the parent company has set aside to pay off the law suit? The next annual statement is going to have an interesting entry in the liabilities column.
Hank Carr says:
Tomorrow is the day.
Tomorrow is the day that Judge Hillary Strackbein set at the request of Assistant State’s Attorney David J. Smith for the sentencing of wrongfully prosecuted and wrongfully convicted Julie Amero.
There cannot be a single person involved in this case, the Judge, the Prosecutor, the Jurors, the police “expert”, and the school board “expert” who does not know at this point that Ms. Amero was wrongfully prosecuted and wrongly convicted. There is absolutely no doubt that Ms. Amero will have her conviction overturned on appeal and that she will easily win massive compensatory and punitive wrongful prosecution and wrongful conviction damage rulings against the state and the police and equally massive damages in her libel suit against the Norwich Bulletin.
We have to hope that New London County State’s Attorney Michael Regan does the right thing, the intelligent thing, the grown up thing and seek to have the wrongful conviction vacated in the face of the overwhelming evidence that she was wrongfully prosecuted and wrongfully convicted and to do as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper did in the Duke Rape case and very publicly declare her absolutely innocent of all charges.
Everyone involved in this case should be facing professional disciplinary charges or outright dismissal with cause. No one, not the judge, not the police detective, not the school board IT “expert”, and not the editor, editorial board, or reporters for the Norwich Bulletin should be secure in their jobs after tomorrow.
The ONLY solution which I believe will begin to put things right in this case would be for State’s Attorney Michael Regan to go to court tomorrow and ask the judge to vacate the conviction, to withdraw and to declare Ms. Amero absolutely innocent of all charges, and to immediately and publicly offer to begin negotiations to compensate Ms. Amero for the crimes perpetrated against her by agents of the state and the local police. Continuing with the charade of sentencing Ms. Amero for a crime which she did not commit will only prolong her ordeal and increase the eventual cost to the state of compensating her.
As soon as she is declared innocent the local police services board should immediately fire the incompetent self aggrandizer who falsely testified against Ms. Amero for the police.
The parent company of the Norwich Bulletin should fire the editor, the entire editorial board, and all of the reporters who threw decency, integrity, and neutrality to the wind and libelled Ms. Amero throughout her ordeal.
The State Attorney General should take a long hard look at both the State’s Attorney and the Assistant State’s Attorney for their roles in this case. In my opinion the Assistant State’s Attorney who prosecuted this case is a complete neophyte who has no place in the modern legal system.
I’ll bet you a dozen loonies (around $10) that none of this comes to pass.
Hank.
Anonymous says:
Yes, Hank we are sittin and waiting at this point. I know it should be interesting to say the least. Alex Ecklebury has been silent and has remained so, as he is very involved in the case with the forensics and could no longer make any comments until it was over with. It should be interesting to hear his comments once it is over…….
I just hope she and her husband go for broke when it comes to compensation for the hell she has been through. It may not bring back her baby, but maybe they can at least pick up the pieces and have some kind of life…………
pwils says:
Sorry, new computer, post above should have been from pwils…………
Hank Carr says:
Or…they could just keep delaying sentencing in the vain hope that the furor will die down.
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007705180324
Vacate the conviction. Declare her absolutely innocent. Negotiate a settlement.
Hank.
pwils says:
Acutally, William Dow, her new attorney appeared in court yesterday to file as her new attorney. The new forensics has been completed, Alex Ecklebury of Sunbelt Software is a part of this. All of these people who have come forward to help in this horrible travesty of justice are doing so from my understanding pro bono. Believe me, it is not going to die down, every time it gets close to a new sentencing date it goes out on the internet and all updated news is blurted out through the media, blogs…………etc etc. Although the internet scum for malware is what may have caused her all this pain and problem (Not to exclude the idiots of the Norwich School System, Computer Illiterate police dept, prosecutor and judge)in the end it is the message being transmitted through the internet which brought all this people together to fight for her………….
But it should be a wake up call for all states, judiciary systems, police depts, that they need to come up to speed with the computer technical age before we start convicting innocent people.
Bob Rynd says:
Hey Pwils,
I have been following this story very closely; albeit from California. I believe I read that you would attend the sentencing hearing today. Has there been another postponement? Can you report what happen today? Thanks.
BobR.
pwils says:
The sentencing has been postponed again to June 6th (I think this is a record in the state of Connecticut). William Dow of New haven, CT is the new attorney in her case. And from what I understand, the prosecutor is still looking at all the new evidence in this case and made a statement that it could affect the outcome of her original conviction. So I would say, probably before June 6th, there might be evidence presented to the Judge who originally presided over the case. My understanding is that they could move to vacate the conviction, I am not sure.
I am continuing to watch for new updates, and if it does come to the sentencing court date I still plan on attending. I think they are trying to figure out how to get out of this now without having too much egg on their faces……
The state is probably a little nervous at this point as they just approved payment of Approximately $5,000,000 to a man who was wrongly convicted and spent 18 years in jail before they finally figured out he did not commit the crime. Julie has spent a fortune on her defense, she was 4 months pregnant at the time of her arrest and after whe was arrested, she miscarried…….. And they had spent years and a lot of money for her to get pregnant………..
So after that and with her arrest, they had not the time or money to try again at parenthood. So they have good grounds for a suit for sure……….
I will post again if I hear anything else……..
Scott Aaron says:
Apparently the judge in the case will be changing soon. (http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770517027) They don’t say when, but before June 6. So they would be presenting evidence to a new judge, and asking him/her to vacate the verdict from a previous judge’s court. I don’t know if that makes things more difficult or not, or if it means anything at all.
ED says:
I just read that the charges have been dropped. This is great but it leads me to ask, Will they pursue the adware companies as aggressively as they did this woman? It seems that they went to a lot of trouble to “get” her. Seems that it never was a very good case to begin with but they may have one against the adware companies. Probably not however as it would take to much effort, guess the kids are not worth it after all if it takes to much work. Better to pick on a Teacher trying to do her job.
What really bothers me is this, I understand that from time to time you can get an Assistant DA or States Attorney that goes off like Rambo, but where was his boss? Was he asleep at the wheel?
Lastly I have read that the Prosecutor objected to evidence being admitted that was favorable to her side and the Judge agreed. Does anyone know what the basis for the objection was? It seems rather significant now that the testimony and evidence that was excluded was the very same that exonerated her in the end.
I am from North Carolina so we are no strangers to Prosecutorial misconduct (Mike Nifong, Durham, NC District Attorney against the Duke Lacrosse Players).
Scott Aaron says:
I don’t think the charges were dropped. The conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered. (http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=52835) On a related note, I love how the Norwich Bulletin refers to the “newly discovered evidence” that led to the verdict being overturned. (http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070607/NEWS01/706070374)
pwils says:
The judge ordered a new trial, but the prosecutor said they are not sure they are going to pursue it.
Ed,
The expert witness testimony and evidence in the trial was disallowed on a technicality. Because the prosecutor was not allowed to review it beforehand the prosecutor objected and the judge agreed. Of course, they could have delayed the trial so that the prosecution could review it and resume, but my understanding from the transcript is that the Judge had other pressing things to do and wanted to get this trial done by the next day.
And, did you read how the Judge in her statement when she order the new trial also admonished all the people who were blogging for trying to influence the court? Don’t they call that our constitutional right to freedom of speach? I guess this tells you a little bit about this judge and the power she (Hilliary Strackbien) thinks she has over every citizen in our state.
Leland says:
pwils wrote: “And, did you read how the Judge in her statement when she order the new trial also admonished all the people who were blogging for trying to influence the court? Don’t they call that our constitutional right to freedom of speach? I guess this tells you a little bit about this judge and the power she (Hilliary Strackbien) thinks she has over every citizen in our state.”
Hold on there just a minute. I don’t think you understand what an appeals court judges do. They do not retry the case. They review the way the case was conducted to make sure all the rules were followed and the defendant’s rights were properly protected and enforced.
The only input the appellate court accepts is the transcript of the trial and the attorney’s appealed issue(s). (That is a description of what the attorney feels went wrong or did not go wrong in the trial depending on which side of the appeal you are on.)
The attempts to contact the appellate court and influence the outcome were in fact improper under our legal system. And we either have a system or we do not. The alternative is chaos.
Lastly, what are you upset about? The appellate judge came up with the right answer, didn’t she?
pwils says:
Leland,
The judge the granted the new trial was the same judge that conducted the trial, Hilliary Strackbien. She, during the trial chose to uphold the objection of the prosecutor not to allow the evidence that the defense brought to court that day because the prosecution was not allowed to review it beforehand. I realize that this was a mistake by the defense attorney, but considering the seriousness of the charges, she could have delayed the trial for a day or two so that evidence could have been reviewed by the prosecution. She chose not too. But now, based on the same evidence and even more she granted a new trial. Also, after the verdict and two years after the original arrest the prosecutor decided to send the computer to the state crime lab for forensics.
Secondly, she specifically directed her comments regarding unduly influencing the courts to those who blogged about the case, not those who may have tried to personally contact her or the courts. Those who blogged, simply used the blog to voice their opinions and to reach out to the Legal community and technical experts to help in this case as you and I have both done now.
It was the internet blogs that brought this to the attention of attorneys and computer experts who came together as a team to bring this about granting of a retrial. What she said was we were trying to influence the court by doing what we are doing right now. Communicating our thoughts and opinions. The last that I knew that was called Freedom Of Speech.
Leland says:
I didn’t know that. I thought it was tossed on appeal, not reconsideration. My bad.
But still, there is a proper way to submit information to the court, so she is still partially right.
Bob says:
Thankfully, reasonable minds ultimately prevailed in this case, in a large part because of the “voice” of outrage from the community. Good on Julie for stciking to her conviction of innocence.
pwils, I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts and comments. I think Judge Strackbien comments reflect alot about the character of her person. She is passing the buck and not taking the responsibilty that she owes the community – an open mind and an effort to find justice.
Is there a time limit on a decision to re-try(sp?) the case? At what point does the civil suit begin?
Bob R.
pwils says:
Leland,
If she wants to admonish the person(s) who may have tried to call, email her etc. I agree, but she has no right to say that by blogging you are trying to unduly influence the court. You are giving your opinion, just like the media does……………..she specifically mention blogging, not persons who tried to call or email her etc. Or again, maybe she should recuse herself on the fact that she is not computer illiterate as maybe she does not understand or know what blogging is?
Bob,
Not sure if there is a time limit. I think there is. I think the only crime there is no time limit on is murder in this state.
On another note, I hope she brings a law suit against the Norwich School System, the Norwich Police Department and the Prosecutor who was so derelict in his duties by not seeking the truth in this case.
» Norwich BULLetin: FAIL? Boycott Norwich Bulletin: You’ve read the Norwich Bulletin, now read what they left out. says:
[...] of those that try to be fiscally responsible, their complete hypocrisy, their racebaiting and the mess they made of the Amero case as the unprofessional reporter had annoounced her guilty before the trial and [...]
Leland says:
This just keeps getting better and better. So Andrew, as a part of the Gannet family, have you received any heat based on your stance?
P.S. You should have posted the whole thing over there.